Who Are The Palestinians?

[Hossfly]

Is this pro-Palestinian propaganda?

The children killed in Gaza during 50 days of conflict - Telegraph

"In all, at least 521 have been killed since the onset of Israel’s offensive on July 8..."

Yes it is pro-Palestinian hasbera. Hamas is responsible for those deaths and will pay for them.

 

[montelatici]

The Daily Torygraph is now left-wing and pro-Palestine? LOL. Do you know anything about anything? The Daily Telegraph is a right-wing newspaper in the UK, that usually unquestionably supports Israel. What an idiot you are. That's why I picked the Telegraph, to get exactly the response I got form you, which shows what a brain washed moron you are.

 

[Hossfly]

The Daily Torygraph is now left-wing and pro-Palestine? LOL. Do you know anything about anything? The Daily Telegraph is a right-wing newspaper in the UK, that usually unquestionably supports Israel. What an idiot you are. That's why I picked the Telegraph, to get exactly the response I got form you, which shows what a brain washed moron you are.

How in hell does the Daily Telegraph have more knowledge than the UN Council of Human Rights? UNCHR has already accused Hamas for those deaths. And the Telegraph ain't my paper. Try the Washington Times.

 

[montelatici]

The UNCHR has not accused Hamas, it has accused Israel. Why do you lie all the damn time.

 

[MJB12741]

Is this pro-Palestinian propaganda?

The children killed in Gaza during 50 days of conflict - Telegraph

"In all, at least 521 have been killed since the onset of Israel’s offensive on July 8..."

Now then Abdul would you care to explain what the Geneva conventions have to say about using civilian areas to engage in war from, and why the side that uses the civilian areas is held fully responsible for any civilian deaths.

So who killed those 521 children according to International law

Oh Monte, what are we to do with you & your nonsense? You see, it's not too bright to bring your children into a war zone. But then, Palestinians will be Palestinians.

 

[Hossfly]

The UNCHR has not accused Hamas, it has accused Israel. Why do you lie all the damn time.

I thought it was UNCHR. My mistake. It was the Security Council. Question for Monte:Why don't chickens piss?

 

[montelatici]

Is this pro-Palestinian propaganda?

The children killed in Gaza during 50 days of conflict - Telegraph

"In all, at least 521 have been killed since the onset of Israel’s offensive on July 8..."

Now then Abdul would you care to explain what the Geneva conventions have to say about using civilian areas to engage in war from, and why the side that uses the civilian areas is held fully responsible for any civilian deaths.

So who killed those 521 children according to International law

Oh Monte, what are we to do with you & your nonsense? You see, it's not too bright to bring your children into a war zone. But then, Palestinians will be Palestinians.

Kind of like the Polish Jews bringing their children to the Warsaw ghetto, not too bright. But then, Jews will be Jews.

 

[montelatici]

The UNCHR has not accused Hamas, it has accused Israel. Why do you lie all the damn time.

I thought it was UNCHR. My mistake. It was the Security Council. Question for Monte:Why don't chickens piss?

UN Security council did no such thing you lying p.o.s.

 

[Hossfly]

The UNCHR has not accused Hamas, it has accused Israel. Why do you lie all the damn time.

I thought it was UNCHR. My mistake. It was the Security Council. Question for Monte:Why don't chickens piss?

UN Security council did no such thing you lying p.o.s.

Hey, you're right! The UM, a terrorist sympathizing shithole on the Hudson River calling itself, United Nations, is always quick to blame Israel for all the Hamas caused deaths.

 

[montelatici]

I don't know wht the UM is, but:

"The International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Hague has opened an inquiry to ascertain whether war crimes were committed against Palestinians when Israel bombed Gaza last year killing at least 2,000."

Court launches inquiry into Israeli war crimes The Times

 

[Hossfly]

I don't know wht the UM is, but:

"The International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Hague has opened an inquiry to ascertain whether war crimes were committed against Palestinians when Israel bombed Gaza last year killing at least 2,000."

Court launches inquiry into Israeli war crimes The Times

UM = United Muslims and the ICC is just as corrupt as the UM.

 

[montelatici]

Every organization is corrupt except Israel. Cognitive dissonance at its best.

 

[MJB12741]

Every organization is corrupt except Israel. Cognitive dissonance at its best.

Hey monte, did you hear the one about "Israel is stealing 'Palestinian' land"?

 

[montelatici]

How about this one Otto.

Why did the Zionist cross the road?

 

[LOki]

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that the "Palestinian" nation of Israel was attacked on the very day of its birth, by hostile Arab/Islamic nations surrounding it--and those hostile foreign nations sponsored traitors within the Arab/Islamic population of Israel.

It occurs to me that these Arab/Islamic Israelis ("Palestinians") actually belonged (briefly) to a nation in somewhere between May 14th and May 15th, 1948. They belonged to a nation that asserted a commitment to "foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; ... be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; ... ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture;..."

Yet these "Palestinians" chose to fight with the forces of hostile invading nations, against their own newly formed nation (i.e. Israel)--and then they lost. They could have fought with their own countrymen in defense of their nation, but they chose otherwise. It's pretty self evident why Israel wanted nothing to do with those back-stabbing shit-birds.

You cannot deny that Jewish "Palestinians" (Israelis) stood up as the valid sovereign organization on the eve that Great Britain abandoned its administrative control of the region. You cannot claim that Arab/Islamic "Palestinians" stood up as a valid sovereign organization. And you cannot deny that (aided by foriegn nations) certain Arab/Islamic Israelis went beyond contesting the legitimacy of Israeli soveriegnty, but went all the more farther by embracing the invaders of their own lands--traitors to their nation and traitors to themselves.

Considering the behavior of the progeny of those traitors, I'm entirely unsurprised that Israelis are unwelcoming to them, and I am wholly surprised at the restraint Israel has exercised in not obliterating them from the planet in the manner that they have clearly been so capable of doing.

I think these "Palestinians" have been barred from citizenship in the surrounding Arab/Islamic nations because the citizens of those nations weren't too keen on patriating the traitors to Israel that they sponsored in 1948 (after all, traitors ARE traitors regardless of which side they sell out to); and they sensibly maintain that same position of disdain for the trouble-making posterity of those traitors.

If I'm not wrong about this, it seems apparent to me that the right thing for these Palestinians to do is accept that their forebears lost for them any claim to a homeland in Israel when they turned against their countrymen and lost; and (in light of their behavior since) they should accept with gratitude any accommodations they get now. One of those accommodations really ought to be the possibility of patriation by the sponsor nations of their treason.

 

[montelatici]

You are quite wrong. The Israelis had started ethnic cleansing of the Christians and Muslims in 1947 well before the departure of the British. The Arab troops that intervened in 1948 were attempting to prevent the Jews from continuing and finalizing the ethnic cleansing/genocide of the Christians and Muslims. There is so much propaganda on the Zionist side promulgated to Americans, it is no wonder that Americans have the point of view they have.

While not source documentation this British Forces in Palestine website, which is a neutral site, relates what actually happened:

"By the end of 1947........Jews were pursuing their 'facts on the ground' policy by attacking and destroying Arab villages and ejecting the inhabitants."

"The British are criticized for not actively defending the Arab villages but there were insufficient troops and the US had refused assistance in the form of troops or other support (many US and other factions, including British, were actively supporting the Zionist takeover and had powerful backing). General Stockwell had specific orders that troops should only be used for defence. He was in liaison with both Arabs and Zionists and knew how strong the Haganah were (contrary to myth) and that the Palestinian Arabs, though they had plenty of courage, were badly organized, equipped and trained so stood no chance against the Zionists. Consequently, the Haganah was quickly able to occupy territory way beyond that designated by the UN."

Who was there - British Forces in Palestine

 

[Phoenall]

I don't know wht the UM is, but:

"The International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Hague has opened an inquiry to ascertain whether war crimes were committed against Palestinians when Israel bombed Gaza last year killing at least 2,000."

Court launches inquiry into Israeli war crimes The Times

Only problem is that the ICC will also look at the Palestinians war crimes and take action against them. Because Israel is not a

You are quite wrong. The Israelis had started ethnic cleansing of the Christians and Muslims in 1947 well before the departure of the British. The Arab troops that intervened in 1948 were attempting to prevent the Jews from continuing and finalizing the ethnic cleansing/genocide of the Christians and Muslims. There is so much propaganda on the Zionist side promulgated to Americans, it is no wonder that Americans have the point of view they have.

While not source documentation this British Forces in Palestine website, which is a neutral site, relates what actually happened:

"By the end of 1947........Jews were pursuing their 'facts on the ground' policy by attacking and destroying Arab villages and ejecting the inhabitants."

"The British are criticized for not actively defending the Arab villages but there were insufficient troops and the US had refused assistance in the form of troops or other support (many US and other factions, including British, were actively supporting the Zionist takeover and had powerful backing). General Stockwell had specific orders that troops should only be used for defence. He was in liaison with both Arabs and Zionists and knew how strong the Haganah were (contrary to myth) and that the Palestinian Arabs, though they had plenty of courage, were badly organized, equipped and trained so stood no chance against the Zionists. Consequently, the Haganah was quickly able to occupy territory way beyond that designated by the UN."

Who was there - British Forces in Palestine

While the arab muslims started ethnically cleansing Jews and Christians way back in 627 C.E. and are still doing it today. In fact in 1929 the NAZI grand mufti organised a massacre of Jews in Jenin and Jerusalem, Then in 1931 another massacre of the Jews took place. Both these events led to the indigenous Jews forming militias to defend against arab muslim violence, terrorism and murder. So when did the real ethnic cleansing take place Abdul, and who was behind it all.


And if as you state the Jews were very thin on the ground then the report of the British army and the aggression faced from the civilians points to it being arab muslims now doesn't it

 

[LOki]

You are quite wrong.

Oh? Then demonstrate, because what you've offered fails to address my point.

The Israelis had started ethnic cleansing of the Christians and Muslims in 1947 well before the departure of the British.

I won't dispute this. Not because I agree with you, but rather, it's entirely beside the point.

The Arab troops that intervened in 1948 were attempting to prevent the Jews from continuing and finalizing the ethnic cleansing/genocide of the Christians and Muslims.

The only relevant point you've made here is that the Arab troops invaded Israel...their rationale for doing so is inconsequential to the point--making the rest of your post irrelevant.

I'm not a social justice warrior, and I'm not making a social justice point. I find the reaching back into antiquity for the first cause rationalizations that validate the brutality those rock-chucking retards inflict upon each other (and all of us too) to be tedious and unproductive. Mostly because it's all full if lies. Hence, that narrative is not something I'm going to give weight to.

P.S. It's worth making note of the observation that the countries sending troops into Israel out of concern for "ethnic cleansing" were not sufficiently concerned with the welfare of the folks they were allegedly protecting to patriate them into their own country after their invasion failed.

 

[montelatici]

No, in 627 AD, the 'Arab Muslims" (who were mostly former Christian converts to Islam) as you call massacred the Christians (there were no Jews in Jerusalem at the time as they were not allowed in by the Christian Byzantines) and they permitted Jews, previously excluded by the Christian Byzantines back into Jerusalem.

Jews, from then, lived with the Muslims as a minority in Jerusalem until the First Crusade when Christian knights from Europe capture Jerusalem after seven weeks of siege and massacred the city's Muslim and Jewish population on July 14, 1099.

As to your other nonsensical point the website makes it clear in the text who the aggressor was. I don't think Arabs were attacking Arab villages.


"By the end of 1947........Jews were pursuing their 'facts on the ground' policy by attacking and destroying Arab villages and ejecting the inhabitants."

"The British are criticized for not actively defending the Arab villages but there were insufficient troops and the US had refused assistance in the form of troops or other support (many US and other factions, including British, were actively supporting the Zionist takeover and had powerful backing). General Stockwell had specific orders that troops should only be used for defence. He was in liaison with both Arabs and Zionists and knew how strong the Haganah were (contrary to myth) and that the Palestinian Arabs, though they had plenty of courage, were badly organized, equipped and trained so stood no chance against the Zionists. Consequently, the Haganah was quickly able to occupy territory way beyond that designated by the UN."

Who was there - British Forces in Palestine

 

[montelatici]

You are quite wrong.

Oh? Then demonstrate, because what you've offered fails to address my point.

The Israelis had started ethnic cleansing of the Christians and Muslims in 1947 well before the departure of the British.

I won't dispute this. Not because I agree with you, but rather, it's entirely beside the point.

The Arab troops that intervened in 1948 were attempting to prevent the Jews from continuing and finalizing the ethnic cleansing/genocide of the Christians and Muslims.

The only relevant point you've made here is that the Arab troops invaded Israel...their rational for doing so is inconsequential to the point--making the rest of your post irrelevant.

I'm not a social justice warrior, and I'm not making a social justice point. I find the reaching back into antiquity for the first cause rationalizations that validate the brutality those rock-chucking retards inflict upon each other (and all of us too) to be tedious and unproductive. Mostly because it's all full if lies. Hence, that narrative is not something I'm going to give weight to.

No, the only relevant point is that the Europeans began ethnically cleansing the Christians and Muslims from their homes well before the British left or the creation of Israel, making the creation of an Arab state within the borders set forth by the partition plan impossible.